The Opposition PNC/R has placed the talks on hold over perceived differences over the implementation of certain decisions. Specifically, the Opposition had complained about the failure of the Government to lay two papers in the National Assembly - one a policy paper on house lot distribution and the second related to the defence of our sovereign borders - as well as failure of the Government to provide electricity for De Kinderen, one of the depressed communities identified by the leaders for assistance.

The President had responded to the criticisms of poor implementation by pointing to the many decisions arrived at in the dialogue. At the same time, he chronicled the progress and reasons for not having the three matters completed.

The decision of the PNC/R to "pause" the dialogue came in the wake of an impasse over the composition of key parliamentary committees, which has so far delayed appointments and promotions within the public service since the relevant constitutional commissions cannot be established.

In a recent exchange of letters, the President and the Leader of the Opposition indicated their intention to move ahead providing certain obstacles can be cleared. One suggestion has been for the points of differences on the parliamentary committees to be listed so that these can be studied by the leaders.

Now comes the Bishop's letter and in it another useful suggestion based on the principle that where decisions are taken collectively, there should be some form of shared responsibility for implementation. It is hoped that in the interest of the nation, and especially at this time of heightened tensions in the society over the escalation of armed criminal activity, a phenomenon in no way peculiar to Guyana, both leaders will see the necessity of placing the country first and arrange to have the dialogue reactivated.

Differences are bound to arise from time to time in the dialogue process, but these are best resolved at the table itself. At the same time, it is very important that the task of implementing decisions agreed to by the leaders be pursued with vigour, lest all their efforts go in vain.

In his appeal to the leaders, the Bishop noted that dialogue should neither be just another talk shop or reduced to mere negotiations. He urged that the two leaders commit themselves to the common good and go beyond sectional interests.

It should be added that the dialogue process itself must never be treated as an opportunity for one side to demand its pound of flesh or to gain ascendancy over the other. Similarly, it should not be sabotaged in order to frustrate the affairs of State.

When the President initiated the process, he never intended it to be a process of horse trading but rather a genuine attempt for both leaders to meet, discuss and arrive at decisions which would redound to the benefit of all Guyanese. It is therefore important that the dialogue not become victim of other extraneous circumstances but instead be a positive force for the resolution of issues, offering as it does an alternative to confrontational actions.

The local Roman Catholic Bishop, himself honoured nationally for his sterling contribution in the struggle for democracy and justice, and a part of a universal church which has played important roles in mediating conflicts in many countries, is convinced that the dialogue will result in reduction in social and political tensions.

In his appeal, Bishop Singh said, "The recommencement of the dialogue between the two leaders will contribute favourably to a reduction in tensions and an improvement in the overall climate of the country. There is ample evidence that political dialogue between the leaders has impacted positively on political and social tensions."